Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Statements by people not listed in the dispute
These statements were made during the application for arbitration by people who were not explicitly listed as parties to the dispute.

Statement by JzG

 * I am not personally much involved with Sam Spade, apart from his RfC. When that was raised I reviewed his edit history and confirmed my existing view from what previous interactions I've had with him that he has strong convictions, and when policy runs counter to these convictions it is clearly his view that his convictions should always prevail.  He only cares about consensus when it supports him.  Few editors have been around for as long as Sam without learning when to let an overhwlming majority view prevail, he WP:OWNs several articles as detailed above and pushes a view which, even if it were a majority within the USA, which is debatable, is undoubtedly not representative of the world at large.  In particular several of his edits go directly against the consensus view of pretty much the entire scientific community.  Just zis Guy you know? 20:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ElC
After so many failed mediation attempts with SS on the part of various people, Fred Bauder's seemingly highly selective use of a Mediation Committee referal serving as a condition for a acceptance is as preplexing as it is potentially revealing. El_C 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "You may want to use the less formal (and more open) Requests for Comment instead" from Requests for mediation. "in·stead (ĭn-stĕd') adv. 1. In the place of something previously mentioned; as a substitute or an equivalent: Having planned to drive, we walked instead. 2. In preference; as an alternative: yearned instead for a home and family." from Answers. WAS 4.250 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already certified Requests for comment/Sam Spade. And this is not a conversation thread, User:WAS 4.250. El_C 20:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For my own failed mediation attempt with SS, please refer to my advocate, Wally, and to our mediator, Danny. El_C 21:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by NatusRoma
Based on a statement that User:Sam Spade made on his talk page, it is quite likely that he will not be able to participate in this arbitration case for at least a week's time. The Arbitration Committee should consider deferring this case until Sam Spade is available to defend himself. NatusRoma | Talk 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * NatusRoma, thank you, I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but I can't believe Sam would want this situation to last any longer than it has to. His input on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sam Spade suggests to me that he's keeping wikisilence because he's bitter at being RfC'd. He was also aware that an RFAr was likely, resented it very much, and spoke of ceasing to edit if it happened. If Sam intended to take part here and wished to have more time for it, he would surely have left a short explicit note to that effect on his page. Indeed, there's nothing to stop him from doing that at any time, since both Wikipedia and e-mail are easily available from all continents. Anyway, I suppose it's pretty moot, since it'll surely be at least a week or two before the arbs have time to look closely at the case. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC).
 * I had considered the possibility that Sam was feigning or would feign silence in order to delay the process of this arbitration, but I hadn't seen those diffs, and didn't want to bring up the possibility in case Sam had not yet thought to stick beans up his nose, so to speak. Go on with the arbitration, then, and let Sam Spade defend himself if he wishes. NatusRoma | Talk 02:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Geogre
The heart of an ad hominem is not that it is an insult. It is that it is a change of topic. When Sam has been in conflict, he has resorted to a discussion of the contributors rather unfailingly. If a disputant says, "You're a socialist nazi," one's responses can be 1) deny it, 2) counter-attack, 3) remind the disputant that the subject is the article. Most of the time most of the people will respond with #1 or #2, and that's when the ad hominem works.  (It works with compliments, as well; either way, it changes focus from the subject to the speaker.)  Sam's contributions are sometimes quite good, but when there is disagreement, he launches an ad hominem as a matter of course, and then we end up with insult battles, "proof" that one person is or is not a pinko subversive, etc., and the article goes the way Sam intended it, as those who disagree lose in a battle of attrition or are distracted by the personality battles.  This tendency has made Sam last man standing in a number of areas, and it has not changed in the last two years since I have been aware of Sam's edits. For my part, I wish not to be attacking Sam, but rather pointing out that he has a pattern and practice of attack that is, at this point, so well known and aged that experienced editors simply avoid him. That runs contrary to Wikipedia's mission and makes us "The encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless they disagree with Sam Spade on a topic he cares about." Further, I appreciate Fred's desire to see process fulfilled, but I doubt Fred is any more unaware of the previous attempts at mediation with Sam than the rest of us are and hope that he recognizes that this is a venerable case. Geogre 13:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For evidence, I sincerely hope the members of the AC take a look at the recent RFC against Sam, as evidence was presented there in great detail. I notice that folks are quiet just now, but this is probably because Sam himself is quiet.  To the degree that this case is not about Sam as an ongoing problem (i.e. not an injunctive case), but about Sam's consistent and historical behavior, I hope they do take the long view.  After all, RFaR conversions don't constitute remedy.  Geogre 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Wile E. Heresiarch
In the two years that I've been aware of Sam Spade, he has consistently wasted tremendous amounts of other people's time, vastly outweighing the positive contributions he makes from time to time. In the interest of furthering Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia, I recommend to the arbitration committee that Sam Spade be banned immediately and permanently. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Merecat
Sam has beeen around a long time and has made many edits, mostly good, some not so. I would ask the ArbCom to use this case as an opportunity to begin using a princple of "that's ancient history" to discount those gripes which are so old that they clearly are being held by editors nursing a grudge. Now, I am not saying that any who speak against Sam here are doing that. Rather, what I am saying is, even if you are held mostly in high regard by everyone, the longer you are around and the more you edit, the more grudge-holders tend to remember you and grind an axe against you. Take a look at the recent 3RR where SlimVirgin accidentally transgressed. The 3RR reporter there was clearly grinding an axe and pressed very hard for sanctions, with multiple comments. Seeing that as an example, I am asking that the ArbCom begin to formulize a method/guideline whereby older complaints, if they were not too severe, will "age" and be excluded from carrying forward forever. Merecat 09:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to ignore ancient history when it does not have parallels in current behaviour. Unfortunately, in this case, it generally does have such parallels. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Eternal Equinox
I'm just curious: exactly how many of the users who filed this arbitration are administrators? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like Sam. I've supported Sam in the past. Trust me when I say this has nothing to do with who is and who is not an admin. By the way, I am not an admin and do not care to be one under the current conditions (review my recent contributions if you wish to see why). WAS 4.250 01:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But... that doesn't quite answer my question, now, does it? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the "involved parties" in this dispute, User:Bishonen, User:Mel Etitis, User:Cyde, and User:KillerChihuahua are admins. So, the answer is "4" (out of a total of 7, plus Sam himself), though you'd no doubt find many more admins who endorse or support this RfAr if you checked the recent RfC. -Silence 01:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That many admins? Sorry Sam. It looks like you've lost. Sorry. You know the ArbCom and what they're taken to. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean to imply by that? The Arbitration Committee bases its decision on the existing policies and the available evidence, not on how many admins are involved in the RfAr. Admins and normal users alike are capable of misconduct, and the opinions of non-admins count on Wikipedia too. -Silence 02:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, since you asked about admin/non-admin stats, the people who endorsed filing an RfAr on Sam Spade's conduct on the RfC included 9 admins (User:Bishonen, User:Cyde, User:JzG, User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Geogre, User:Mel Etitis, User:FeloniousMonk, User:JoshuaZ, User:Exploding Boy) and 7 non-admins.
 * The total number of admins who made or endorsed statements criticizing Sam's conduct on the RfC is 17: User:Bastique, User:Bcorr, User:Bishonen, User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Cyde, User:El C, User:Exploding Boy, User:FeloniousMonk, User:Geogre, User:Hawstom, User:JoshuaZ, User:JzG, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Knowledge Seeker, User:Mel Etitis, User:Pjacobi, and User:Sean Black. This, combined with the 19 non-admins who made or endorsed statements criticizing Sam's conduct (User:172 (a former admin), User:Avedomni, User:Batmanand, User:Bikeable, User:Cadr, User:Calton, User:Cberlet, User:Colin Kimbrell, User:Danny Lilithborne, User:Daycd, User:Gatoclass, User:Giano, User:Hgilbert, User:Ig0774, User:Infinity0, User:Jim62sch, User:Silence, User:WAS 4.250, and User:WGee), makes for at total of 36 distinct users criticizing Sam's behavior, on that one RfC alone.
 * There were also a few users who opposed the RfC's criticisms, consisting of 0 admins and 6 non-admins: User:Cognition (indefinitely blocked user), User:Herschelkrustofsky (indefinitely blocked user), User:Justforasecond, User:Merecat (indefinitely blocked user), User:Sam Spade, and User:Thewolfstar (indefinitely blocked user). The only other users who commented on the RfC were three non-admins, User:Dalbury (to criticize Justforasecond's comment and vouch for the integrity of some of Sam Spade's detractors), User:Goethean (to dispute an interpretation of some of the evidence against Sam), and User:Quiddity (to quote from MPOV). By my count, that's 45 users who commented on the RfC and its Talk page. -Silence 02:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)